RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ.
Dilip - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Ii Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 395 of 2021
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Suspension - Conviction - Section 302/34 IPC, Section 389 CrPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 389 CrPC regarding suspension of sentences and the implications of Section 302/34 IPC in the context of the evidence presented, ultimately allowing the suspension of the sentence pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced. He applied for suspension of the sentence, arguing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and medical evidence regarding the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had strong grounds to challenge the conviction based on contradictions between witness statements and medical evidence, indicating that the case may not warrant the original conviction.
Issues: Whether the appellant's sentence should be suspended pending appeal based on the evidence presented and the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the discrepancies in the evidence provided a substantial basis for the suspension of the sentence, allowing the appellant to appeal the conviction.
Result: The application for suspension of sentences is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail pending appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. This second application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellantapplicant Dilip who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC vide the judgment dated 08.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, Camp Kushalgarh in Sessions Case No.47/2016.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to the application for suspension of sentence and proposed to argue the matter orally.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. The first application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as, his counsel Shri Shambhoo Singh did not press the same after arguing the matter at some length. Learned counsel Shri Vikram Singh representing the appellant-applicant urged that the appellant-applicant was on bail during the course of trial. He drew the Court's attention to the statement of the star prosecution witness, the child Pappu (PW.2) and urged that as per the evidence of this witness, the accused Dilip and Tita both inflicted lathi blow to his father, the deceased Dala. Attention of this Court was also drawn to the statement of medical jurist Dr. Lalitpal (PW.12) who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Dala and it was urged that only one injury on the head of the deceased was noticed which resulted into fracture of the underlying bones and damaged brain causing death. Shri Vikram Singh urged that as there is a distinct allegation of the witness that two accused persons inflicted the blow on the head of the deceased and as only one injury was found on the head of the deceased, the ocular testimony is totally contradicted by the evidence of the medical jurist. It was further submitted that even if the prosecution case is admitted to be true, at the highest, the offence, if any would not travel to beyond Section 304 Part II/325 IPC. On these submissions, Shri Virkam Singh craves acceptance of bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that as per the testimony of child witness Pappu PW.2, the appellant as well as the co-accused Tita allegedly inflicted lathi blows on the head of the deceased. As per the medical jurist Dr. Lalitpal (PW.12), only one injury was found on the head of the deceased Dala when postmortem was carried out.
6. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellantapplicant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.
7. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara Camp Kushalgarh vide judgment dated 08.01.2021 in Sessions Case No.47/2016 (CIS No.113/2016) against the appellantapplicant Dilip S/o Shri Hurtan @ Hurtang shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 07.09.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimony and medical evidence can justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to allow the suspension of sentences and release on bail pending the appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and the legal principle from Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600 in suspending th....
The presence of hostile witnesses does not negate the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction when corroborated by other credible testimonies.
The nature and gravity of the offence influenced the Court's decision on the application for suspending the sentence.
Suspending a sentence for a serious offence like murder requires a rare demonstration of exceptional circumstances, without re-evaluating evidence during bail applications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.